This is part of the problem, though. Rights to the pursuit of happiness, self-determination, etc. It’s very hard to be truly happy if you’re living a lie, always worrying about what people will think.
This also goes back to living for appearances only (something I will be addressing soon in a philosophical piece). Claiming moral superiority while forcing others to bend to your will is not morally superior, as I see it. Nothing about the right for gays to marry forces others to marry in a way they don’t want. That said, I would agree and understand the point that has been made elsewhere about the politically correct movement having been overplayed. I understand the knee-jerk reaction to being told what to do, however I think this ignores the underlying argument for respect for people who have been traditionally marginalized by society.
I don’t see either of your points about conservatives or Obama. We may have to agree to disagree, because I am noticing some patterns here, mainly that the argument is being continued by subject-hopping. With the utmost respect to you, and appreciation that you have tried to be respectful, you argue like a right-wing radio host. Points are never conceded, the subject simply changes. This is precisely the obfuscation and damaging habit of public discourse that I’m arguing against. As I have commented to conservatives I have debated, everything leads to another problem, and nothing can be solved. This is simply another version of that debate model, and it’s circular/ pointless/unending. I understand this is how you make your living, and I don’t begrudge you that, but I feel the methods are unproductive.
So, please allow me to agree to disagree so I may move on to producing more content, and you are welcome to continue commenting on my work. Thanks for the debate, and have a great day.